Green on Blue: causes and responses (merged thread)

[Fuchs]

And anyway, religion is the last thing on the mind when performing our duties!

That would explain the previous lines.
Your description sounds more like about customs than about actual spirituality. It's more talk as about an American visiting the Oktoberfest in Munich than talk about people who connect faith with the need to kill someone.

[Bob's World]

Bob:

Nice stump speechifying. You know what we are all talking about even if you don't approve and want to steer things in another direction.

Carl,

I am not "stumping," rather I am stumped at how you think the current rash of killings are not related to the very similar factors driving the larger insurgency.

There is both Revolution and Resistance in Afghanistan, and what we wage against most internal to Afghanistan is the resistance. This resistance is not ideological and it is largely apolitical. It is a natural human response to perceptions that some foreign presence is unnatural, inappropriate, and must go.

We have pressed our units into their lands and populaces and waged COIN against insurgents with little regard for how those tactical efforts strategically affect the larger insurgency. In recent years we have forced greater integration between Afghan soldiers and Western members of the Coalition. We tell our men that they will keep coming back until the Afghans are prepared to take over. No pressure.

Do personal conflicts occur? Of course. But resistance insurgency is personal. It matters little if the trigger event is an attack helicopter shooting up your little brother while he was repairing a culvert, or if the trigger event is some E4 frustrated with your inability or lack of motivation to do something in a particular manner or degree of priority he thinks you should have leveling some grievous insult upon you. Respect is a major causal factor in resistance, just as revenge is.

Even if our guys were a bunch of cultural geniuses these events would still be going on because it is also the latest tactic from the Revolutionary aspect of the insurgency. Join the security forces, get close, attack the foreigners. Target the trust necessary for this coalition to work effectively.

To attempt to rationalize these events off in personal or ideological terms is a dangerous bit of self-delusion.

[TheCurmudgeon]

In the Indian Army, the tradition is that all adhere to the religion and customs of the troops. Hence, it is not surprising to see non Muslim officers of a Muslim unit undertaking Ramzan and being on a fast and anyway, all have to attend the Mosque prayers.

There is an idea. We could require Soldiers working with ANSF in Afghanistan to attend Friday Prayer with the units they are working with. Could you imagine the maelstrom of news reports and lawsuits that would create.

Heck, even if a forward thinking NCO or Officer decided to attend Prayer (not that it would be allowed) most Americans in his unit would start to wonder about him.

However, if we did how would the Taliban react? Kind of a "two can play at that game" thing. There is disruptive thinking for you.

[Fuchs]

Keep in mind you need the necessary resources to execute a plan, and American commanders most likely don't have the resources to execute such a plan.

Moreover, the domestic political effect for Obama would be political suicide. He's under suspicion to be a Kenya-born Muslim Manchurian candidate trying to destroy the American way of life...

[TheCurmudgeon]

Fuchs,

It would never happen. Some time back a female Soldier sued the Army because she was being ordered to wear a Burka. She won.

American's are too arrogant. We think all other cultures need to adapt to us, not the other way around (even at Oktoberfest).

It might be possible on a small scale with SF troops, but not with GPFs.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Fuchs:

I have another question. Some of the displaced persons that my Mom knew and worked with here in the US in the 10 years or so after WWII said German troops were much better behaved than American troops. (This is not counting reprisals and thing like that.) They said that in the normal course of events they preferred having German troops in the area. I think I read that elsewhere also but can't remember where.

Curious if the level of discipline is a factor. Again, I am oversimplifying, but assuming the German Troops were more disciplined and therefore less likely to mouth off or curse at the population, could that be a factor.

Along a similar line it is worth noting that the Marines were seen as less offensive.

U.S. Marines were viewed as having better attitudes and being more respectful and respected

The same was said about ETT members and females, so it is difficult to say that it was a discipline issue alone. Could have been a training difference. Of course, the other assumption that could be made is that ETT members would probably be older and more experienced.

[carl]

Carl,

I am not "stumping," rather I am stumped at how you think the current rash of killings are not related to the very similar factors driving the larger insurgency.

There is both Revolution and Resistance in Afghanistan, and what we wage against most internal to Afghanistan is the resistance. This resistance is not ideological and it is largely apolitical. It is a natural human response to perceptions that some foreign presence is unnatural, inappropriate, and must go.

We have pressed our units into their lands and populaces and waged COIN against insurgents with little regard for how those tactical efforts strategically affect the larger insurgency. In recent years we have forced greater integration between Afghan soldiers and Western members of the Coalition. We tell our men that they will keep coming back until the Afghans are prepared to take over. No pressure.

Do personal conflicts occur? Of course. But resistance insurgency is personal. It matters little if the trigger event is an attack helicopter shooting up your little brother while he was repairing a culvert, or if the trigger event is some E4 frustrated with your inability or lack of motivation to do something in a particular manner or degree of priority he thinks you should have leveling some grievous insult upon you. Respect is a major causal factor in resistance, just as revenge is.

Even if our guys were a bunch of cultural geniuses these events would still be going on because it is also the latest tactic from the Revolutionary aspect of the insurgency. Join the security forces, get close, attack the foreigners. Target the trust necessary for this coalition to work effectively.

To attempt to rationalize these events off in personal or ideological terms is a dangerous bit of self-delusion.

Like I said before, murder is personal no matter how much you want it to be related to broader (very broad) political considerations. You were a DA. You know that. The report Curmudgeon and I referenced makes this pretty clear. Did you read it?

I don't believe I am rationalizing anything, nor are the people who have studied this phenomenon. I think you are trying to relate every single thing that happens to your ideas about the hows and whys of the broader war. The old communist commissars used to do that. Every single thing was related to the struggle of the proletariat, even if it wasn't.

And just to top things off, your idea of an apolitical "resistance" to foreign troops is silly no matter how many times you say it. MO has a political agenda, as do the Haqqanis, as does Gulbuddin, as does AQ, as does the Pak Army/ISI, as does the IMU. And I also notice that Taliban & Co are mostly Pashtun. Last time I checked the Hazaras weren't flocking to the Taliban banner, nor were the Uzbeks, nor the Tajiks, nor the Kuchis etc. And I also noticed that a whole lot of Pashtuns on both sides of the border who opposed Taliban & Co have had their throats cut. I will admit that the idea of a national and apolitical "resistance" relieves the mind of the duty of heavy thinking and can give one the warm and fuzzies when contemplating the nobility of the resistance.

I am still very interested in your opinion about what if anything can be done about these murders, or what could have been done in the past about this. Also I am interested if you have any data or opinion about whether non-western troops provoke the same kind of thing. However, if the response is going to be another stump speech about the "big picture", please don't.

[Fuchs]

...but assuming the German Troops were more disciplined and therefore less likely to mouth off or curse at the population, could that be a factor.

Aside from leadership and random variations, why not blame the jeep?

German troops had almost no motor vehicles for occupation duties, so they were probably much less present in rural areas than the more mobile Anglophone troops on occupation duty.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Aside from leadership and random variations, why not blame the jeep?

I am sorry, I was referring to the WWII comments on civilians found German's less offensive then Americans. Guess I should have made that clear.

But in the interest of "cultural" considerations, I suppose I should blame the Kamaz instead of the Jeep

[carl]

Aside from leadership and random variations, why not blame the jeep?

German troops had almost no motor vehicles for occupation duties, so they were probably much less present in rural areas than the more mobile Anglophone troops on occupation duty.

Fuchs I think you may be saying more than you know. We got into trouble in Iran way back when because of the way American troops drove. I read that ARVN troops got into trouble because of the way they drove. In both Iraq and Afghanistan one of the major complaints was/is the way Americans drove and convoy pro force type procedures. I got thoroughly ticked off one day because of the way some spec ops types in Strykers drove. Behavior on the road is one of those things that the ideal "gentleman" is cognizant of but that 20 year olds can disregard in the best of circumstances, not to mention their 40 year old superiors worried about their careers.

[Fuchs]

I am sorry, I was referring to the WWII comments on civilians found German's less offensive then Americans. Guess I should have made that clear.

Me too. American occupation troops were more motor vehicle-mobile, thus likely more present and more points of contact = more friction. You can also be a much better bully on a rural street if you have a 60 hp jeep with a signal horn than when steering a horse cart.

edit: Carl - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J4RjwVA-PI
This is an old video, 2009 at the latest.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Me too. American occupation troops were more motor vehicle-mobile, thus likely more present and more points of contact = more friction. You can also be a much better bully on a rural street if you have a 60 hp jeep with a signal horn than when steering a horse cart.

Makes more sense now. Most of the places I drove in Afghanistan I was pretty much the only thing on the road, so it never occurred to me. Also, most of the time we were hauling heavy engineer equipment, so it was not as easy to be a bully.

That said, the report cites complaints about Soldier's driving.

[Bob's World]

Two points. First (and again), you can't have it both ways: You can't say the population doesn't care and just want to be left alone AND that they are upset with the occupation and therefore are fighting us. If they wanted to fight us they would join the insurgency. I am not a believer in the idea that the Taliban has been working to place moles in the Afghan security forces just to kill one or two people while in fits of rage. You project your beliefs onto another culture in order to satisfy your own narrative.

Second, it is irrelevant to the question asked as I will explain below.



Even if ten percent of the murders were caused by our misunderstanding of a cultural difference then they are worth studying for that reason alone. It is also arrogant to believe that this is just an Afghan problem. If, in fact, it is the result of our ignorance to understand a tribal culture then it is likely to be reproduced in any other similar culture under similar circumstances.

And you seem to believe that "the taliban" is some formal organization that one joins...odd. Insurgency is an informal business, and we label people by their actions, but I'd advise against thinking that our labels then convert into some actual formal organization.

"The Taliban" are in simplest terms those Afghans who resist against our presence or who revolt against the government of Afghanistan. Why would you assume that those Afghans who opt to join the security forces of Afghanistan at one point in their life might not some months later come to realize they made the wrong decision for them and decide to act in a manner that supports the insurgency??

I do not project Western beliefs or values on anyone, I simply look past what we wish the facts of some situation were to attempt to understand them for what they actually are.

So many of our programs intended to achieve COIN success produce reasonably positive tactical effects that we can measure, so we assume those programs to be moving us toward our strategic goals. Like adding tactical successes can ultimately get to strategic success. But what we ignore or don't understand is that many of those same actions that produce positive tactical effects also produce negative strategic effects due to how they are implemented. In those cases every action moves us closer to strategic failure at the same time that we delude ourselves that we are closing in on tactical success. Night Raids, Clear-Hold-Build operations, training ANSF, etc all fit in this category much of the time.

So, a man joins the ANSF in a belief that he is best served by supporting the current government. Then over time some mix of how he is treated by his foreign trainers, the types of operations he goes out on, etc combine to make him realize that in now believes he is better served by supporting change. This does not mean he was a "mole" planted by Taliban leadership, he could be, but he could have just been "radicalized" by his exposure to his trainers or the ANSF experience in general.

[Dayuhan]

So, a man joins the ANSF in a belief that he is best served by supporting the current government.

I'm not sure it's safe to assume that everyone who joins the ANSF believes that he is best served by supporting the government. Might there not be cases where people who aren't particularly supportive of the government join the ANSF for a paycheck, or for personal security? I suspect that taking sides is often more closely related to personal factors than to any particular belief about what's best for the country.

In parts of the Philippines it's still common for clans to place some of their young men in the military and police, just to have contacts there down the line. No idea if that's done in Afghanistan, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Just saying I don't think it's safe to assume that those in the ANSF are or ever have been supporters of the government.

Has there been any effort to break these killings down into efforts to kill any American, generically, and those targeting a specific American?

[Fuchs]

I'm not sure it's safe to assume that everyone who joins the ANSF believes that he is best served by supporting the government. Might there not be cases where people who aren't particularly supportive of the government join the ANSF for a paycheck, or for personal security? I suspect that taking sides is often more closely related to personal factors (..)

I meant to write something similar, but then I concluded that this is actually included in what he wrote.

[sean bastle]

Has there been any effort to break these killings down into efforts to kill any American, generically, and those targeting a specific American?

There has been, but its hard to get good data because in so many cases the "shooter," is killed themselves. But the thought is that in most cases the perp is just trying to kill any American. Or, perhaps more appropriately, as many Americans as possible.

[Bob's World]

I'm not sure it's safe to assume that everyone who joins the ANSF believes that he is best served by supporting the government. Might there not be cases where people who aren't particularly supportive of the government join the ANSF for a paycheck, or for personal security? I suspect that taking sides is often more closely related to personal factors than to any particular belief about what's best for the country.

In parts of the Philippines it's still common for clans to place some of their young men in the military and police, just to have contacts there down the line. No idea if that's done in Afghanistan, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Just saying I don't think it's safe to assume that those in the ANSF are or ever have been supporters of the government.

Has there been any effort to break these killings down into efforts to kill any American, generically, and those targeting a specific American?

Dayuhan, Curmudgen - neither one of you needed to make this point in response to my post, as I had already made it as a cornerstone position OF my post

"So, a man joins the ANSF in a belief that he is best served by supporting the current government"

(Key phrase being "a belief that he is best served." I never said that these were all patriots who joined on some partriotic agenda to make GIRoA work. Some certainly are, but I never even implied that most were anything but individuals trying to do what they see is best for them. Same is true when they opt to act in a manner that supports the insurgency.)

[J Wolfsberger]

Can anyone point me to any sort of survey that attempts to quantify Afghan attitudes (preferably by tribal affiliation) toward the Afghan government, US troops or the US in general?

I don't mean the type of "opinion" polls we're currently getting inundated with in the US during the presidential election season. I mean the kind of internal polls the campaigns conduct where they don't dare lie to themselves.

If we don't understand how or what the Afghans really think of their own government and us, it seems like we're flying blind trying to understand what prompts this type of violence.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Can anyone point me to any sort of survey that attempts to quantify Afghan attitudes (preferably by tribal affiliation) toward the Afghan government, US troops or the US in general?

I don't mean the type of "opinion" polls we're currently getting inundated with in the US during the presidential election season. I mean the kind of internal polls the campaigns conduct where they don't dare lie to themselves.

If we don't understand how or what the Afghans really think of their own government and us, it seems like we're flying blind trying to understand what prompts this type of violence.

Carl posted this some time back:

A crisis of trust and cultural incompatibility

It is limited to ANSF attitudes, as opposed to the general population, and it has a relatively small sample. Still, it is pretty good.

[davidbfpo]

A very different place, but useful here and I emphasis the question mark. An account by an Israeli Defence Force soldier deployed to checkpoint duties:

the checkpoints’ primary mission is to demonstrate presence, to exhibit the army’s constant surveillance and its overwhelming force. Because the checkpoints are pervasive and involve intense interaction with the civilian population, they have become the clearest expression of the IDF’s dual message to West Bank Palestinians: you cannot hide and you cannot fight; Israel is both omnipresent and omnipotent.

Link:http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.4/o...occupation.php